Case description
The SAPO requested the court to confiscate UAH 7.12 million in assets belonging to State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) official Andrii Chapchai.
The SAPO uncovered evidence that Chapchai and his wife, Yuliia Apolonina, a prosecutor from the Vinnytsia Oblast Prosecutor's Office, had acquired unjustified assets. Some of these assets were acquired through Apolonina's aunt, Olena Striletska, who acted on their behalf.
According to the prosecution, the individuals acquired the following unjustified assets:
- An apartment in the Frantsuzkyi Kvartal 2 (French Quarter 2) residential complex, registered in the name of the prosecutor's grandmother.
- A parking space, registered in the name of the prosecutor's aunt.
- An apartment in Kyiv, registered in the aunt's name.
- A garden house.
The total difference between the value of the assets acquired by the couple in 2019 and 2020 was UAH 7.12 million.
The prosecutor stated that the apartment was gifted to Apolonina by her grandmother. The grandmother had, in turn, granted the couple power of attorney to represent her interests and manage her property. Based on this power of attorney, Apolonina signed a purchase agreement for the apartment with Oleron Standard, a private non-diversified venture corporate investment fund, which was represented by Budcapital Asset Management Company.
Subsequently, the grandmother gifted this apartment to the prosecutor. The keys to the apartment and the electronic access key fob were given to the couple. The preliminary purchase agreement for this apartment was signed by Chapchai, and he also made the advance payments. Chapchai’s use of the apartment is further evidenced by his purchases at stores in and near the building, as well as his payments for utility services. The grandmother herself did not have the necessary income to purchase this apartment.
A certificate of readiness for the property's operation was registered for the garden house. Its construction lasted from January to September 2020. The value of the fixed assets commissioned was UAH 650,000.
Olena Striletska, Apolonina's biological aunt, also acquired an apartment worth UAH 2.5 million and a parking space in the same residential complex for UAH 700,000. Chapchai, acting on powers of attorney from Striletska, signed the purchase agreements for these properties and also made the payments.
From 2020 to 2022, Chapchai paid for the communal services for the parking and apartment. The key fob was issued to Striletska's authorized representatives, Apolonina and Chapchai. At the same time, Striletska and her husband did not have the funds to purchase the apartment and parking space, considering their expenses for an apartment in Lityn and the potential financing of an apartment for their son.
According to the SAPO, the real estate properties mentioned in the lawsuit, with the exception of the garden house, were acquired by other individuals on the couple's behalf. At the same time, their incomes did not justify the acquisition of these assets. Therefore, the SAPO prosecutor filed a lawsuit with the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) to declare the assets unjustified and confiscate UAH 7.12 million for the state budget.
The defense argued that assets could only be considered unjustified if acquired after November 28, 2019, the date the law on the confiscation of unjustified assets came into force. The defense also claimed that the couple had worked and saved money throughout this period, and that all of their income was legitimate.
The HACC found some of the assets to be unjustified: the apartment for UAH 3.8 million, the parking space for UAH 700,000 registered to Apolonina's aunt, and a portion of the cost of another apartment — UAH 2.5 million out of a total of UAH 2.8 million. However, the court agreed that some of the funds for the apartment registered to the aunt were paid with Chapchai's official income, so they only confiscated a portion of its value. The court also found that the garden house was built with legally obtained funds.
The Appellate Chamber of the HACC upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the first instance correctly established the circumstances, evaluated the evidence, and justifiably deemed part of the assets unjustified and subject to confiscation.
Additionally, after the decision came into force, Chapchai was dismissed from his position. However, he was later reinstated.
.png)